Monday, 31 March 2014

Why Do People Support Immigration? Part I
(Part II will be Why we should not support Immigration)

For those of us who oppose mass immigration it can be a bit of a mystery as to why others aren't on our wavelength. How do they justify it in their mind and why do so many not see that there is a problem. In this the first part of a two part series I will list and talk about why they support mass immigration. Some of the reasons are:

Pride
Only seeing part of the problem
Aids the economy
Equality
Helping to solve the world problems
Guilt
Decent person

Pride
Many countries accept immigrants, but this one here lives in your country, out of all of the countries in the world they picked your country. There must be something that they really like, love or want about your country. Here is someone who isn't one of us but who moved here to be a part of us. Your country is the best and this immigrant has shown you that. For many people this can give them a sense of pride, even a patriotic feeling.

Only seeing part of the problem
You can only see and experience those things that you see and experience. What I see and experience will be different from what you see and experience. So some peoples experience of the impact of immigration is limited, as they never have a real opportunity to see how large it is. They may have a parting glance and wonder if something is wrong but as it is only a glance they become distracted with life, as we all do and put the thought aside. If immigration is a problem it's someone else's problem, but not something that affects them.

Aids the economy
There is an argument that says that we need immigration to aid the economy. A big economy is better than a small economy and that only immigration can provide the number of people required to build that bigger economy. The business sector is quite keen on this argument, but you will also hear this argument from everyday people. Sometimes this goes back to pride, they want the best for their country. Sometimes they make a living off of immigration and sometimes they fear any downturn in the economy.

Equality
If everyone is equal how can it be that some people are denied the ability to live in your country? If everyone is equal then that means that people can live where they like and be free to live as they like. Discrimination is wrong and that includes treating people differently just because they come from another country and aren't a citizen. Racism exists because of ignorance, once you meet and live with people of other races, ethnic groups, religions and cultures than you will not be ignorant.

Helping to solves the worlds problems
The world has problems no one doubts that one but some people believe that immigration is a way of helping to solve the worlds problems. Poverty is a real problem in the world but if poor people can immigrate to rich countries then they will not be poor. Hunger is a real problem but if hungry people can immigrate to countries with food then they will not go hungry. Lack of education is a real problem but if uneducated people immigrate to countries with schools then they will learn. There is hardly a problem in the world that immigration cannot solve.

Guilt
If you live a life with money, good health care, sanitation, lack of war and little civil strife, if you are educated and live a life of comfort than you might feel a little guilty. You know that not everyone in the world lives this way. Some live terrible lives in terrible conditions, others not so bad but not as good as your life. You have been blessed, so why shouldn't others also be blessed?

Decent person
For others immigration is about being a decent or reasonable people. They don't want to be haters or even worse have someone else think of them as a hater. They value people as individuals and they only see immigration on a person to person base. They never look beyond to see how immigration affects other people because that would imply that they were not decent.

This isn't a complete list but I think you get the basic idea, people who support immigration do not do so in a vacuum and it is not wise for us to think they do. In part two I will be looking at why people should oppose immigration.

Thursday, 27 March 2014

Why I am a Constitutional Monarchist
I am an Australian and Australia is a Constitutional Monarchy, our Monarch, the Queen of Australia doesn't live in Australia, she lives in Buckingham Palace in London. Most people call her the Queen of England even though there hasn't been such a title since the Union of England and Scotland in 1707. Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of 16 Realms or countries and she is also head of the Commonwealth which consists of 16 Realms, 5 Monarchies and 33 Republics. But she remains at one and the same time the Queen of Australia.

Now this isn't about the Queen of Australia but about why I support Australia remaining a Monarchy and why I support it in other countries, inside and outside of the Commonwealth. I support Constitutional Monarchy for four reasons Tradition, History, Family and Politics.

Tradition
Here is an institution that is more than 1000 years old, it has stood the test of time. It is not the latest thing and that gives it a glamour that is all it's own. Some try to treat the Royal family and the institution as just another celebrity, but they are not. They can trace their history back into numerous periods of history and then can say that they have been a major part of that history. How many celebrities can say that?

The institution is the custodian of palaces and castles, documents and ceremonies. It is the symbol of a nation and it's people, it is even more than that because it is a symbol of 16 realms and the people of those realms. Not just a symbol, a living symbol of living nations and their living people.

History
To the best of my knowledge no one in my family has ever meet a member of the Royal family, non the less we share a history. A history that covers good times and bad, war and peace but at all times shared. We have sworn allegiance to the Monarch of the day, we have served and we have been loyal. Just as the Monarchs have served us and been loyal to us. It is not a one way street but a shared thoroughfare. No politician or celebrity can say that, we are simply ships passing in the night. But not the Monarchy it has been there in the background of our lives for centuries.

Family
At it's heart Monarchy is about family, the Monarchy is a living symbol because it's members are born into it, they marry and they die. All as members of the Royal family. They are ordinary people but born to a special duty. A duty that is a burden, people notice the wealth, they notice the glamour, but they forget that at all times it is a duty. One the individual royal did not choose, which is why so many of us give them our loyalty and our love. Because they serve us, even if they renounced the Monarchy and left their family they would still not escape that burden. People love a royal baby, they love a royal wedding and they grieve a royal death. Because they see their own family, the lifes and dramas they experience projected large. Monarchy is about family.

Politics
In times past Monarchs had vast powers, now nearly all of that power is gone. But the Monarch does still have power, they still have influence and personal charisma. But the greatest power they have is existing at all. A modern Monarchy stands outside of everyday politics, they do not deal with policy nor with personality politics. But each side knows there is a neutral watching them. The people are not neutral, we are the biggest partisans of all. But the Monarch or their representative is watching. The Monarch decides who forms Government and when a Government has gone too far. Of course it must be sparing in it's use but the power is real. Monarchs stay outside of politics, Republics try this with Presidents but Presidents are not born to the role. They get to be President because they are political figures.

If all goes as it should, one day, I hope far distant, the current Queen of Australia will die, as we all must. Then her son will become King of Australia and then his son and then his son. The connection between past, present and future is clear for all to see. I hope that our futures continue to be shared for a very long time.

Sunday, 23 March 2014

What is More Important, the Past, the Present or the Future?
Liberals would say without question that the future is the most important of the three as the past is over, the present is here but the future is where all potential lies. But Liberals are confused because they really believe that the present is the most important. They pillage both the past and the future to create the present. We can see this in Liberal economic policy and in Liberal social policy. Short term thinking is preferred to any long range plans or visions.

For the Conservative choosing between the past, the present or the future is a false choice. For the three are inseparable. There is a direct line between all three and it is important that each receive the attention that it deserves.

The past is our foundation, the bedrock that allows a stable society to exist, it is here that we can see our Heroes, those who have done great and noble deeds and thoughts. In our past we see our failures and our enemies, our victories and our defeats. The past allows the people of the present and the future to learn without having to endure. We can see how others coped, we can see that others survived hard times. The past gives us courage and it protects us. Not only can we see the sacrifices that have been made for us by those in the past but we can use that to protect ourselves now and in the future. It is a gift that our ancestors bestowed upon us, a great gift.

The present is the here and now, the place where we live in time, but the present is a constantly moving place. It is the place we live and it is the most unstable of all. It never stops moving but our entire life is lived in the present. We all have a past but we do not life in it, our past is past. But it continues to affect us at all times. We do not life in the past, nor do we live in the future but the present is the most fleeting of all. However the present is just as important as the past or the future, for without it the past was for nothing and the future will never arrive. Our present will someday soon be our past and the present will decide how the future will turn out. Of course not only do we live in the present but everyone we know also lives here and it is very important that we try and make the present as livable as possible.

The future is where we all hope to end up, even if by then it is the present. The future is a place of both hope and despair. We hope for a better future, a place where we are respected and the things we believe are also respected. But of course we also live with the fear that non of these things will come to pass. Politically, socially, economically, in foreign affairs and national security and of course personally. The future is not just a place for future events to take place but a place where we want those who come after us to also believe in their future. That those of us who lived in the past gave them a future worth having, a future that gives more benefits than negatives. But we do not hope for a world without troubles for that is not a realistic vision. It is one thing to hope for a better future because that is possible but quite another to hope for a future without problems for that is not possible. We should not set ourselves or those who come after us up for failure.

Many times in my life the past has given me courage, others have done this so can you, it has inspired me and given me hope. The future always glitters with a promise. The problem with life is the present, but if we lose our faith in the past or our hope for the future we have also lost the present. The present is not alone but part of a trinity and it is this trinity that Traditional Conservatives should remember. It can give us strength, we are not alone those who came before us are with us and the future is still to be created so lets fight to create it.

Wednesday, 19 March 2014

Why the Domestic Violence Industry Will Fail
Currently and for some time now there has been an effort to eliminate domestic violence. It started with Feminists, but is now a part of mainstream Liberalism. Even senior Police, who you would think had more sense, have called for domestic violence to be eliminated. The usual call is for zero or no tolerance of domestic violence, but as I shall show these calls will fail. Not because domestic violence is good or bad but because they believe a series of assumptions that simply are not true.

Because this industry was started by Feminists it is their assumptions that make up the starting point. In short they said that:

Men are violent
Women are victims
Men are evil
Women are innocent

Now men can be violent and evil, women can be victims and innocent, but it is very simplistic to believe that the relationship between the sexes begins and ends there. But when you look at the domestic violence industry you will see these claims being made over and over again in one form or another. It is the bedrock on which everything else is built.

Most people think they know what domestic violence is, it is hitting or some kind of a physical assault, it may be some kind of treat or threatening behavour. But according to the domestic violence industry, it is so much more than that. Have you ever yelled at your partner? Had a disagreement about money? Told them they may not do something? Have you ever told them they were stupid? If so you may be guilty of domestic violence!

No hitting, no violence just words

Of course most people think that this is absurd but not the domestic violence industry. Their definition is as broad as possible, of course there is an epidemic of domestic violence when you believe that yelling at your partner is violence. Sadly the Police in many places have been trained to think in exactly this way.

Domestic violence is real, it exists and for those caught up in it it can be devastating. But here we come across another assumption, that domestic violence is planned. You know a man wakes up has breakfast and writes himself a to do list:
Go to work
Put on Football Tips
Do a spot of gardening
Beat up Wife
While I cannot say this has never happened how common do you think this actually would be? In fact in the vast majority of cases domestic violence is a simple disagreement that for some reason spirals out of control. When you look closer you see a number of reasons why these disagreements spiral out of control.

How many arguments have you had in your life? Can't remember? Don't worry I doubt anyone can. Arguments are a part of life as are the various stresses of life. But most arguments do not lead to physical violence or threats of violence. So what makes these different? The sense that things are out of control and that they are going to get worse. That there is no escape from this.

These are real issues some of which something could, at least in theory, be done. But the domestic violence industry for the most part is not interest in trying to stop or manage this problem. Because they have never left the assumptions that underpin the entire industry. That men are violent and evil and that women are innocent victims. In any particular case that may or may not be true, but they don't care about that. They only care about keeping the assumptions alive. Instead of being what it proclaims to be, an industry that wants to protect women, it is much more interested in punishing men. For not only men who do the wrong thing are guilty of domestic violence, if you are attacked and defend yourself you are also guilty. If you are simply a man with no connection to domestic violence you are still a man and men are evil. All men are guilty of what some men do. It's answer is that all men must change, that human nature itself must change. That is the goal of the domestic violence industry.

In this goal it will fail, as all other attempts to change human nature have. It is not there to protect, it is there to destroy and everyone, men, women and children get to pay the price.

Friday, 14 March 2014

When people argue to decriminalize drugs they do so by declaring defeat, that in life you either win or lose and as this can never be won we should give up. The problem is that while we cannot win we can absolutely lose and by providing no legal or moral sanction we do no favours to ourselves nor to those who use drugs. Drug laws are one areas where it is clear that most people are against liberalization. But let me go through some of the arguments that are made to support legalizing drugs and put forward reasons why they should not be legalized. Here is a list of some of the more common arguments in favour of legalizing drugs.

Drugs are harmless
Drugs only harm the user.
Alcohol and tobacco are just as bad if not worse
Legal drugs will stop anti-social behavour
Legal drugs will provide revenue
Legal drugs will get criminals out of the drug business
Marijuana is not like other drugs

Every one of these statements is wrong.

Drugs are harmless
This is the most extreme argument, it says that drugs are just another product to put into our bodies, no different to alcohol or food. It's effects are limited and it's only effect is pleasurable. There are no side effects or negative aspect to drug use. Of course hardly anyone accepts this argument as most people have either knowledge of drugs or they can use their common sense. Anything that we put into our body has an effect. What is different about drugs is that they are put into our bodies on purpose to create an effect. The effect is not a bi-product, it is the only reason that anyone takes drugs. If drugs did not have any effect people would stop taking them. That means that even if a drug is not physically addictive, people can become psychologically addicted. Anything that is addictive cannot be called harmless.

Drugs only harm the user.
Addiction takes away the freedom of the user, they now crave something that someone who is not addicted does not need. It is not uncommon for this addiction to interfere with a persons ability to live a normal life and to be a part of the normal economy, in other words it can be hard to keep a job when your mind is craving an addictive substance. If you crave something and you do not have a job how do you pay for your craving? You use up your savings, you stop paying bills, you ask for financial help from family and friends. What happens when these run out? For they will run out. If you still want to satisfy your cravings you have some options, non of them are good. You can steal from your family and your friends, you can steal from random people either by robbing them or burglary, you can beg for money, you can sell drugs, you can become a Prostitute or you can find another way to rip people off. If you have no legal source of income and you want an income you must obtain it illegally, there are only two options available. Every illegal activity is harmful to the drug user and every illegal activity is harmful to people who are not drug users.

Alcohol and tobacco are just as bad if not worse
This is a strange argument as it says that drugs are bad, but so is alcohol, alcohol is still legal so to be fair you must either outlaw alcohol or legalize drugs. It's like arguing at your murder trial, that sure you killed him but your innocent because other people have committed murder and gotten away with it so it would be unfair to punish you and not them. But just as each murder is a distinct event that requires it to be looked at individually, so alcohol, tobacco and each type of drug is a distinct substance. They must all be legal or illegal on their own merit. Just because alcohol use can be extreme does not mean that drugs are benign.

Legal drugs will stop anti-social behavour
The argument goes that if drugs were made legal much, if not all of the anti-social activity associated with drugs would disappear. But sadly making drugs legal does not stop them from being addictive. It is the very nature of drugs, natural or man made that make them attractive to some people. But if drugs are legal how would we compensate for them remaining addictive? We could just make drugs legal and keep other current crimes illegal but how does that help either the drug user or anyone else? We could have a special benefit or pension to support drug users, but now we are encouraging not only drug use but idleness. Idleness is the way to hopelessness, despair and even suicide, why should the taxpayer be supporting any of that? Legalizing drugs also means that those who have no desire to be in contact with drugs now have no way of escaping it's use. Where ever they go there is the chance that they will have to confront drug use, but unlike today where they can call the police, that option is not available, drugs are now legal. Drugs being illegal does discourage young people, not all, from using drugs. When drugs are made legal they are made legitimate no matter how destructive they remain.

Legal drugs will provide revenue
Today drugs are illegal in most places, the profit from drugs goes to shady and immoral people who thrive on human misery. The argument goes that if drugs were legal then that money would not go to these people and instead would be of public good. There are a number of problems with this argument
The Government becomes a drug dealer
If drugs are cheap the Government doesn't get much revenue
If drugs are expensive then drugs will still be sold illegally at a cheaper price
Legal drugs do not stop them from being sold on to people who should not have access to them
The Government must now finance the health problems of drug users, along with every other problem that drug use entails
If neighbouring states or countries legalize drugs each problem becomes more acute with a corresponding drop in revenue
Government will itself become addicted to this money, just as Government is addicted to gambling money, so even when the negative aspects become clear how do you turn off the revenue?
In theory legalizing drugs will increase revenue, the reality will turn out to be very different.

Legal drugs will get criminals out of the drug business
In Victoria where I live we have legal brothels, they were made legal in the 1980's to raise the standard of brothel owners and to drive out those with criminal connections. Street prostitution and private prostitution remained illegal (private prostitution is were a women or a small group of women sell sex from a private home or business). Brothels had to be in industrial areas, away from houses, churches and anywhere that children congregated. The idea was that it would protect both sex workers and their customers from being ripped off, assault and from sexually transmitted diseases. And that those prostitutes who did not work in brothels would start working in these safer places. In theory it should work, but it doesn't. Street and private prostitution continue unabated. The owners of brothels are often found to be covers for criminals and because it is so expensive and restrictive to own a legal brothel there are numerous illegal brothels around. Illegal brothels are run by criminals, some of whom engage in sex slavery. The industry is not cleaner, it is dirtier. I cannot see how making drugs legal will either get rid of criminals who will move to other criminal activity or will make drugs safer, the fact is that drug use is a dangerous activity even in a legal environment. Unless it is a totally free market there will come a time when drugs will be more expensive than users want to pay and guess who will move into the gap.

Marijuana is not like other drugs
Marijuana is often called a soft drug, one that is harmless and not like the other hard drugs. Up to a point that is true but it neglects the negative aspects that even this drug has. When marijuana first became popular in modern times it was a natural plant, but today that is often not the case. It is grown hydroponically and it is much stronger than it was 40 or 50 years ago. It is also claimed that it is not addictive but is only pleasurable, but meeting anyone who has used this drug for a time you will find out first hand that that is not true. All drugs help people to become paranoid, but marijuana seems to be much better at helping people to become paranoid than most other drugs. It is also claimed that it does not have any effect on peoples mental health, but drugs, all drugs are used because they change how the brain works. The user believes that any change is temporary, those who know the user often see permanent changes and hardly ever do they think they are for the better.

Drugs are not just an issue for those who use drugs, they affect us all. When you love someone you do not want to see them come to harm, you want them to achieve their potential. Drugs are not harmless they can destroy lives and we should never think that they are harmless. Drugs will not help people to achieve their potential anymore than alcoholism will. Don't just say no to drugs for yourself, say no to all those who wish to force this curse upon us all.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?Principle of defence

Tuesday, 11 March 2014

Well today is Upon Hope's 1st birthday, I didn't think I'd
make it and nor can I believe that it has been an entire year since I started.
It has been a roller coaster of a ride, in turns both enlightening and
mystifying.

First off I would like to thank Mr. Mark Richardson of Oz Conservative who
inspired me to start this blog and who also gave me some insights into the
world of blogging. He has also been very generous in providing links to a
number of my articles.

I would also like to thank Mrs. Laura Wood of The Thinking Housewife for
her support, she has also supported me by linking to articles and thanks to
both of these people I have been more widely read than I would otherwise have
been.

I have had 15,236 visitors this year with the 25th of April
being my worst day with only 5 visitors and the 13th of August being my best
when I had 377 visitors.

This post will be my 139th post, my early posts are quite
small compared to what I write now, but that has it's own virtue. My most
clicked on post is The
discrimination of anti-discrimination which has been clicked on 636
times. The least clicked post is 4
of 20 The principle of variety which has only been clicked on 4 times,
to be honest it just ain't that bad. It was part of a series I did on the 20
Conservative principles and it was very important to me as it led me into
looking closer at Conservatism. Sadly it was like the plague to the site as
visitors left in droves, for every 3 visitors, 2 left. Fortunately, months like
that are rare.

My visitors fall into 3 groups. Americans make up 60% of
visitors which shows that there are alot of Americans looking for answers, I
just hope that the internet is not where it ends and that you all start looking
for like minded people in real life. It's obvious they are there. The second
group are Australians who make up 20% of my visitors. I really want to connect
with my fellow Australians and do what I have urged my American visitors to do.
In both Melbourne and Sydney there already exist Traditionalist groups you can
join. There is absolutely no reason this cannot be done in other cities and in
the country. The third group is the rest of the world who make up the final
20%. I must admit it is very gratifying to see countries I never thought would
be interested in what I have to say keep turning up. I can never be sure if
it's the same people or different ones all the time, but either way it gives me
a thrill. Something I never expected.

I sometimes wonder about the lives of those who visit this
site, whats troubles them? Are they looking for something to pass the time or
are they looking for answers? Are they students? Unemployed? If not what type
of work do they do? Where do they live? Are they working class or middle class?
Are they Traditional Conservatives? Do they agree with me?

I sometimes wonder about myself and this blog. Am I bashing
my head against a brick wall? Am I contributing anything of value? How often
should I post? Are the topics I pick what people want to read? Why do so few
people post comments? Does that mean my posts are so good there is nothing more
to say? Or does it mean they are so bad it's best forgotten?

I enjoy getting comments, it has lead to some of my best posts. I obviously enjoy when people say they like something, it's great to know that someone has found it of value. Interestingly I have never received a nasty comment and yesterday for the first time I deleted a comment as it was spam. So maybe I should be more grateful for that small mercy.

Now I'll show you all some graphs that Blogger provide to show you the roller coaster I was talking about earlier.

This graph shows the ups and downs of visitor numbers each month, the lowest was in June when I had 616 visitors and the best month was January when I had 1946 visitors. The only comment I will make is that this month, the most right hand side of the graph, is for the current month which is only 1/3rd through at this point, so it looks much worse than it is in reality.

Below are the top 10 posts followed by the number of clicks each has received to date.

Search Keywords

why to conservatives believe that society should have different classes

5

http://uponhopeblog.blogspot.com/2013/10/creating-wealth.html

4

exemples of lonely but successfull people

3

free trade versus protectionism

3

free trade vs protectionism

3

uponhopeblog

3

mark moncrieff hope

2

Below is a map and the numbers for the top 10 countries that have visited my site this year.

Pageviews by Countries

Entry

Pageviews

United States

6731

Australia

3109

United Kingdom

705

Russia

592

Canada

443

China

401

Germany

373

Romania

222

Ukraine

152

France

134

I thank you all for visiting here, I hope I have given you something to think about, I hope I have contributed something of value. I plan to continue posting and trying to further the cause of Traditional Conservatism and I hope you do as well. Here's to another year of posting......Happy Birthday Upon Hope!